--On Monday, January 04, 2010 17:59 -0800 Joe Abley
<jabley(_at_)hopcount(_dot_)ca> wrote:
...
The draft plan is to re-delegate IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA to
dedicated servers, named according to the text you have read.
The servers are to be operated by the five RIRs plus ICANN,
making six operators in total, consistent with the thinking
that led to the current nameserver operators for IP6.ARPA.
The plan includes a timeline for the technical operations
associated with the change, as well as communications with the
root server operators, the RIRs, US DoC NTIA, VeriSign and the
general public through operator mailing lists.
It is my understanding that re-delegation of IN-ADDR.ARPA and
IP6.ARPA will follow procedures specified in the IANA
functions contract, and will not require IAB or IETF action.
Ok, Joe, a few questions since, as indicated in another note,
you are generating these documents in your ICANN capacity:
(1) If ICANN can re-delegate the servers for these domains
without IAB or IETF action, why is IETF action needed to create
the new names? They are, after all, just names.
(2) If IETF action is needed at all, why is this coming from you
as an individual submission, rather than as a formal request
from IANA to the IAB, presumably via normal liaison channels?
Ordinarily, and consistent with RFC 3172, this request would
come to the IAB and not via an individual submission to the IESG
since no "protocol entity" is involved?
(3) And why is this being processed as a Proposed Standard
rather than as a BCP (like other documents describing
allocations in .ARPA such as RFC 3152 (BCP49) and 3405 (BCP65))
or some sort of informational one?
(4) I also note that this document appears to update Section 4
of RFC 3172 but does not note that. In addition, while that
Section 4 indicates, as of September 2001...
"...The IAB is working with ICANN, IANA, and the
regional registries to move "arpa" and "in-addr.arpa"
records from the root servers in accord with the RFC
2870 recommendation for exclusive use of those servers."
...the IAB has not been consulted on this issue (at least since
last March).
Writing/speaking for myself only, although with some personal
knowledge about the recent (and 2001) IAB involvement in this
area.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf